Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 518 - SC - Indian LawsInterest on delayed payments to small scale and ancillary industrial undertakings - The supplier/appellant has raised the demand for interest on delayed payment made by the respondent/Board related to the supplies of goods namely Aluminium Conductors Steel Reinforced (for short "ACSR"), however, the same was not acceded. These supplies were made after the expiry of the time stipulated in the agreement/supply order, but after obtaining specific extension of time by the respondent/Board. - held that:- what is to be considered relevant is the date of supply order placed by the respondents and when this Court used the expression "transaction" it only meant a supply order. When this Court said "transaction" it meant initiation of the transaction i.e. placing of the supply orders and not the completion of the transactions which would be completed only when the payment is made. Therefore, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff fails. Binding value of a precedent - We are in full agreement with the view expressed in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd.'s case (supra). The learned Senior Counsel Shri Rakesh Dwivedi has not been able to make out a case for reconsideration of the decision of this Court in Assam Small Scale Industries Development Corpn. Ltd (supra). In fact, a plea for reconsideration of the same was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in Shakti Tubes Ltd. (supra). We are unable to agree with the argument of Shri Dwivedi and Shri Gupta that the provisions of the Act were not considered in its entirety. In fact, the entire scheme of the Act has been considered in the case of Rampur Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) and specific answer to the issue under consideration was answered. When there are four decisions of this Court with regard to the applicability of the Act for contracts entered into prior to the commencement of the Act, and when the plea for reconsideration has been expressly rejected in the past, we are of the view, it would be against the spirit of the doctrine of stare decisis for us to take any view in divergence with same. - The result is appeals fail and accordingly, they are dismissed. No order as to costs.
|